Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation Discussion
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation Discussion
- From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:56:31 +0200
I agree with Milton on "implementation" and "sensitivities," and think we need
to address the procedural objections that have been raised here and on the GNSO
On Aug 19, 2010, at 10:43 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Thank you very much for getting the discussion going Milton and for the
> suggested edits to the ToR.
> I encourage others to join in the discussion, especially focusing on the
> proposed edits to the ToR.
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 3:13 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation Discussion
> The ToR draft contains some good, solid guidance from heading “Key
> assumptions” on down, although I will propose some specific modifications.
> Unfortunately, there are contradictory and unworkable elements before that,
> especially in the section on the group’s purpose and objective.
> The ToR draft says,
> “The purpose is not to revisit the intended aim of recommendation 6”
> OK. What does Recommendation 6 say? This:
> Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to
> morality and public order that are recognized under international principles
> of law.
> The ToR then says as a key assumption:
> There is no internationally agreed definition of "Morality and Public Order".
> OK, if there is no internationally agreed definition of MAPO, we are indeed
> revisiting Rec. 6 – in fact we are completely defining it.
> This becomes even clearer when we move down to the Tor’s attempt to define an
> objective for this WG:
> The overall objective of the Rec6 CWG is to develop recommendations for an
> effective objections procedure that both recognizes the relevance of national
> laws and effectively addresses strings that raise national, cultural,
> geographic, religious and/or linguistic sensitivities or objections that
> could result in intractable disputes.
> This seems to me to be a complete redefinition of Rec 6. More pointedly, let
> me point out that in defining alleged objective of this WG you have simply
> taken the objective outlined in the GAC Aug 4 statement, and substituted it
> for the actual Recommendation 6 that emerged from the consensus process. Not
> acceptable, sorry. To be more specific, the GNSO process never targeted what
> the GAC statement calls “sensitive” strings per se, only illegal ones. Given
> the inherent subjectivity of a “sensitivity” criterion, let me also call your
> (and the GAC’s) attention to Principle 1 and Recommendation 9, which state,
> All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated against
> transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior
> to the initiation of the process. (Principle 1)
> There must be a clear and pre-published application process using objective
> and measurable criteria. (Rec 9)
> There is also a potential conflict here with Principle G of the existing gTLD
> policy, which states:
> The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom of
> expression rights that are protected under internationally recognized
> principles of law.
> Indeed, when we refer to “national law” we must bear in mind that many
> nations’ laws contain strong protections for freedom of expression that allow
> many forms of expression to offend the “sensitivities” of some groups.
> In other words, Chuck, if you really want to ensure that this WG is an
> IMPLEMENTATION process for Rec 6 we must ensure that any of its
> recommendations do not conflict with other elements of the established new
> gTLD policy. Thus, it is a non-starter to propose “implementation” mechanisms
> that effectively change not only Rec 6, but also some of the basic principles
> of the policy and other Recommendations.
> For additional proposals for minor wording revisions, see the attached
> document, which has the tracking function on.
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:54 AM
> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [soac-mapo] Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation
> Importance: High
> <<New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Discussion Group Terms of Reference
> Here is the initial discussion draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the
> community working group discussion. Please use this list for discussion,
> noting that the list is publicly archived for openness and transparency
> The plan is to have a group call next week to try to finalize the ToR within
> the group so we can begin the discussion of the issues. SO’s and AC’s will
> also be asked to confirm support for the ToR.
> Note that I have asked Glen to change the name of the list to ‘Rec6 CWG’ per
> the draft ToR.
William J. Drake
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and